Long time no post here. Well, as we know, Blackmagic Design removed CinemaDNG from their new Pocket Cinema Camera 4K through firmware 6.2 due legal matters.

Question is ¿Will Blackmagic Design include again 12bit 4:2:2 CinemaDNG in their Pocket Cinema Camera 4K, if they overcome this legal business? I know some people found hard to work around CinemaDNG. But some of us loved the quality you could get from it. I don't own the BMPCC4K yet, but knowing there's no CinemaDNG it's a deal breaker for me.

Probably not, as BlackMagic developed its own raw format specifically for his cameras, BRAW.It's quite impressive, a much more modern codec than CDNG and still a raw 12bit format... Out of curiosity, can I ask you for which kind of work is CDNG a deal breaker?

youlikeny wrote:Probably not, as BlackMagic developed its own raw format specifically for his cameras, BRAW.It's quite impressive, a much more modern codec than CDNG and still a raw 12bit format... Out of curiosity, can I ask you for which kind of work is CDNG a deal breaker?

I've seen some videos comparing CinemaDNG to BlackmagicRAW, and CinemaDNG looks ways better. There's detail and texture missing while shooting BlackmagicRAW if you pay attention to it, you can notice that in some YouTube videos, and as there's compression while uploading to YouTube you can imagine how the original file might have looked (Ways better). I like the quality Blackmagic Design is been delivering with Uncompressed CinemaDNG, that's a deal breaker for me.

Here is a quick comparison, at 300%, of a shot with a huge amount of details, screenshot directly from DaVinci, no compression involved... CDNG LossLess vs BRAW Q0. Just curious, would you call the difference in the details a deal breaker?

CDNG 300%

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 16.00.53.png (986.31 KiB) Viewed 3260 times

BRAW 300%

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 16.00.43.png (889.04 KiB) Viewed 3260 times

Last edited by youlikeny on Thu May 16, 2019 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As I said twice, It's a deal breaker for me. If you're okay with BlackmagicRaw, cool. But I'm not convinced, I wouldn't even call it RAW. I assume you haven't updated your BMPCC4K to the latest firmware that prevents you from shooting CinemaDNG.

Rafael Molina wrote:As I said twice, It's a deal breaker for me. If you're okay with BlackmagicRaw, cool. But I'm not convinced, I wouldn't even call it RAW. I assume you haven't updated your BMPCC4K to the latest firmware that prevents you from shooting CinemaDNG.

I did update to the latest firmware and then I re-uploaded the older one to test both, and I just showed you a few screenshot.. Can you just point out in those screenshot how is BRAW underperforming compared to DNG and why you wouldn't even call it raw?I'm honestly curious, you feel so strongly about it that there must be a reason, I would like to understand it.

Australian Image wrote:You in fact said it's a 'deal breaker' twice. So what exactly do you mean? Or are you trying to be melodramatic?

Look who’s taking about being melodramatic, check your very first comment and you’ll find the meaning of melodramatic with such drama supposition. Don’t talk for me or anybody else, saying nonsense about swearing never buying it, never said such thing. Really bad riddance x2. Eh... xD

Australian Image wrote:You in fact said it's a 'deal breaker' twice. So what exactly do you mean? Or are you trying to be melodramatic?

Look who’s taking about being melodramatic, check your very first comment and you’ll find the meaning of melodramatic with such drama supposition. Don’t talk for me or anybody else, saying nonsense about swearing never buying it, never said such thing. Really bad riddance x2. Eh... xD

If you have a chance, could you answer any of my questions? I'm honestly curious as I'm evaluating both CDNG and BRAW...

Rafael Molina wrote:As I said twice, It's a deal breaker for me. If you're okay with BlackmagicRaw, cool. But I'm not convinced, I wouldn't even call it RAW. I assume you haven't updated your BMPCC4K to the latest firmware that prevents you from shooting CinemaDNG.

I did update to the latest firmware and then I re-uploaded the older one to test both, and I just showed you a few screenshot.. Can you just point out in those screenshot how is BRAW underperforming compared to DNG and why you wouldn't even call it raw?I'm honestly curious, you feel so strongly about it that there must be a reason, I would like to understand it.

You know, analyzing a still frame and a moving picture is pretty different, wouldn’t trust it. Anyways, it’s nice to know you can re-upload the old Firmware to shoot CinemaDNG. It gives me hope, just enough to buy it and stay at an older Firmware.

Australian Image wrote:You in fact said it's a 'deal breaker' twice. So what exactly do you mean? Or are you trying to be melodramatic?

Look who’s taking about being melodramatic, check your very first comment and you’ll find the meaning of melodramatic with such drama supposition. Don’t talk for me or anybody else, saying nonsense about swearing never buying it, never said such thing. Really bad riddance x2. Eh... xD

If you have a chance, could you answer any of my questions? I'm honestly curious as I'm evaluating both CDNG and BRAW...

The deal is, image quality. As far as I have seen CinemaDNG is sharper and has more detail than BlackmagicRAW, it’s a fine image if you pixel peep. The files are heavier, as it’s Lossless Compressed RAW, but you get slight better image quality. Personally it’s something I’ve liked about Blackmagic products since their very first BMCC 2.5K.

You might want to research the matter more carefully; I don't believe all models of the camera can be downgraded to the cDNG firmware.

Just in passing, I can recall people were claiming, based on third party analysis, that BMD cDNG, from the first Pocket camera, wasn't/isn't real 12 bit raw.

I'd go further than most, in doubting you could tell Prores from either braw or cDNG under normal viewing circumstances (assuming you don't choose cDNG based on excess aliasing), but there's no fighting personal preferences. Viewed closely, with enlargement, cDNG is sharper than either prores or braw, but it's also more prone to aliasing. And there's some argument whether the added detail is "real", as opposed to artifacts.

Last edited by John Paines on Thu May 16, 2019 9:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Rafael Molina wrote:The deal is, image quality. As far as I have seen CinemaDNG is sharper and has more detail than BlackmagicRAW, it’s a fine image if you pixel peep. The files are heavier, as it’s Lossless Compressed RAW, but you get slight better image quality. Personally it’s something I’ve liked about Blackmagic products since their very first BMCC 2.5K.

I'm sorry but how more can you pixel peep than a 300% zoom? Are you telling me that you notice a sharper and more detailed image in those screenshots I posted?

John Paines wrote:You might want to research the matter more carefully; I don't believe all models of the camera can be downgraded to the cDNG firmware.

Just as passing matter, I can recall people were claiming, based on third party analysis, that BMD cDNG, from the first Pocket camera, wasn't/isn't real 12 bit raw.

I'd go further than most, in doubting you could tell Prores from either braw or cDNG under normal viewing circumstances (assuming you don't choose cDNG based on excess aliasing), but there's no fighting personal preferences. Viewed closely, with enlargement, cDNG is sharper than either prores or braw, but it's also more prone to aliasing. And there's some argument whether the detail is "real", as opposed to artifacts.

Out of curiosity, regarding cDNG being sharper, did you see those 300% zoom screenshot I posted with the same image shot in cDNG and BRAW?

I've looked at it closely myself, with my own tests. There's no question cNDG is sharper than either braw or Prores. But this won't be visible under normal viewing conditions, apart from the aliasing which is seen with cDNG, for which you don't need magnification, to see.

John Paines wrote:I've looked at it closely myself, with my own tests. There's no question cNDG is sharper than either braw or Prores. But this won't be visible under normal viewing conditions, apart from the aliasing which is seen with cDNG, for which you don't need magnification, to see.

You mean that 300% zoom is not enough to notice that one codec is sharper than the other? I'm a little lost...

youlikeny wrote:Here is a quick comparison, at 300%, of a shot with a huge amount of details, screenshot directly from DaVinci, no compression involved... CDNG LossLess vs BRAW Q0. Just curious, would you call the difference in the details a deal breaker?

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 16.00.53.png

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 16.00.43.png

This is not a good example picture. CinemaDNG is definitely better, you see more details. We have to be honest. CinemaDNG it's minimally better.

Blackmagic Design will certainly make BRAW better with time. Wait and hope.

lee4ever wrote:This is not a good example picture, but even there you see that CinemaDNG is definitely better, you see more details. We have to be honest. it's minimally better.

Blackmagic Design will certainly make BRAW better with time. Wait and hope.

I couldn't think of a better example than thin cables, tiny windows, far buildings, etc to evaluate sharpness... I agree that CDNG is probably 5% better, at 300% magnification, which means that at 100% is exactly the same... Wouldn't you agree?

BlackmagicRAW is a ProRes flavor. Just like this so called ProResRAW Atomos’ been promoting. Real RAW is CinemaDNG. Just hope Blackmagic Design to include it back in their cameras once this legal business is settled. They have had the license for years. A word from a Blackmagic representative would be nice. CinemaDNG is sweet and complements Blackmagic Cameras.

I can understand why some still think they prefer cDNG as a more "pure" RAW experience.

And yet ProRes is still the format the most of the world shoot with.

ProRes. Not RAW. Certainly not cDNG.

If ProRes is good enough for Game Of Thrones, a VFX heavy unlimited budget show that can afford to shoot anything they damn want, then maybe...just maybe...bRAW is a fine substitute for cDNG if you *have* to go RAW.

Anyone who is making this choice based on some youtube clips is also likely doing themselves a great disservice.

If it truly is a deal breaker, then I'm sure you can go pick up a different cDNG based camera right ?

A sharper image does not mean better image quality. A lot of cinematographers use the pro res coming from the Alexa and they don’t have a problem with image quality. So since a sharper image mean better image quality then the original pocket must look better than the alexa

So, again the main difference between CDNG LossLess vs BRAW Q0 if you examine your images is in critical resolution. That's the matter of fact. No matter you shoot moving or still object (some times in movie you shoot still images (objects)). With BRAW you deal with soft image. With CDNG you deal with clean good micro contrast and resolution image.

So for me difference in critical resolution and micro contrast (attached pic. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=87103 ) is like a difference between Leitz Summicron 50/1.4 and cheap no name lens with low resolution and bad micro contrast.

I thing that BRAW should be improved from that point of view. Or in any case users should have an option to use or not to use the best resolution of attached lens.

BM Raw 3.png (630.72 KiB) Viewed 3089 times

Attachments

BM Raw 4.png (533.11 KiB) Viewed 3089 times

Last edited by Valery Axenov on Fri May 17, 2019 9:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.

“We ended up shooting four cameras for the most of it,” states Fabian Wagner, who also operated the fourth camera. “We needed to get so many beats and material.” Along with using ARRI ALEXA XT cameras, shooting high speed as well as ARRIRAW 2.8K for the visual effects, and capturing with ProRes 3.2K.."

Valery Axenov wrote:So, again the main difference between CDNG LossLess vs BRAW Q0 if you examine your images is in critical resolution.

But "critical" for what purpose? Maybe for some kind of fx work. But is the difference of any cinematic consequence? I'd say "no" on two counts: 1) it's invisible under normal circumstances, and 2) DPs are far more likely to want to reduce, rather enhance, image sharpness.

Rafael Molina wrote:BlackmagicRAW is a ProRes flavor. Just like this so called ProResRAW Atomos’ been promoting. Real RAW is CinemaDNG. Just hope Blackmagic Design to include it back in their cameras once this legal business is settled. They have had the license for years. A word from a Blackmagic representative would be nice. CinemaDNG is sweet and complements Blackmagic Cameras.

How is it a ProRes flavor? It’s a 12bit raw format! Pretty sure Blackmagic made it clear when it introduced Braw, that’s the way forward, pretty sure they are not going back to CDNG... why would they? They spent money and years in developing their own proprietary raw format, do you think did it so they could push CDNG?

Valery Axenov wrote:So, again the main difference between CDNG LossLess vs BRAW Q0 if you examine your images is in critical resolution. That's the matter of fact. No matter you shoot moving or still object (some times in movie you shoot still images (objects)). With BRAW you deal with soft image. With CDNG you deal with clean good micro contrast and resolution image.

So for me difference in critical resolution and micro contrast (attached pic.) is like a difference between Leitz Summicron 50/1.4 and cheap no name lens with low resolution and bad micro contrast.

I thing that BRAW should be improved from that point of view. Or in any case users should have an option to use or not to use the best resolution of attached lens.

BM Raw 3.png

There is something odd with these pictures... I literally just did the same test and the result is totally different...

Valery Axenov wrote:So, again the main difference between CDNG LossLess vs BRAW Q0 if you examine your images is in critical resolution.

But "critical" for what purpose? Maybe for some kind of fx work. But is the difference of any cinematic consequence? I'd say "no" on two counts: 1) it's invisible under normal circumstances, and 2) DPs are far more likely to want to reduce, rather enhance, image sharpness.

You don’t even need for vfx, I’m a vfx artist. We don’t sharpen stuff we mostly adding blur

Valery Axenov wrote:So for me difference in critical resolution and micro contrast (attached pic.) is like a difference between Leitz Summicron 50/1.4 and cheap no name lens with low resolution and bad micro contrast.

With Leica, If it's a 1.4, then maybe you mean a Leica Summilux ? A Summicron means it's a F2.

“We ended up shooting four cameras for the most of it,” states Fabian Wagner, who also operated the fourth camera. “We needed to get so many beats and material.” Along with using ARRI ALEXA XT cameras, shooting high speed as well as ARRIRAW 2.8K for the visual effects, and capturing with ProRes 3.2K.."

Maybe they shot all heavy VFX in Prores and the easy stuff in RAW(CODEX and .R3D)

I don't see anything different to what I posted.

The majority is shot ProRes, but like any large show, there's a mix of cameras for different work. Your article talks about a RED on a MOvi for "certain" scenes that were deemed unsafe for Steadicam. Usually RED gets used for VFX where they want more resolution (Usually on BG plates)

Let's not get hung up on Game of thrones. The point I was making was that MOST high end work you see, tends to be more likely shot ProRes than any other format. ProRes has been well and truly established as a very robust and high end codec.

youlikeny wrote:5% better in a still at 300% zoom, which means that at 100% on a moving image you can’t tell the difference..

I'm not sure about that. But I am sure that BRAW is also a professional quality.

Blackmagic Design knew then, with the first cameras, that the best feature in the camera was CinemaDNG and so it was chosen. With CinemaDNG you get the best image quality. Whether it's 5% better, it's 5% better.

Valery Axenov wrote:So, again the main difference between CDNG LossLess vs BRAW Q0 if you examine your images is in critical resolution.

But "critical" for what purpose? Maybe for some kind of fx work. But is the difference of any cinematic consequence? I'd say "no" on two counts: 1) it's invisible under normal circumstances, and 2) DPs are far more likely to want to reduce, rather enhance, image sharpness.

From my practice all Cine lenses have had better quality than any even pro still photography lenses. So, why? I think that only end user should make final decision (may be in post production(!)) what kind of image is good or bad for him. What kind of lenses to use soft or sharp. It's strange not to give a full option to end user.

John Brawley wrote:

Valery Axenov wrote:So for me difference in critical resolution and micro contrast (attached pic.) is like a difference between Leitz Summicron 50/1.4 and cheap no name lens with low resolution and bad micro contrast.

With Leica, If it's a 1.4, then maybe you mean a Leica Summilux ? A Summicron means it's a F2.

JB

Yes you are right. I mean 50mm f2 . Lux is not the best from this point of view.

youlikeny wrote:There is something odd with these pictures... I literally just did the same test and the result is totally different...

John Brawley wrote:I can understand why some still think they prefer cDNG as a more "pure" RAW experience.

And yet ProRes is still the format the most of the world shoot with.

ProRes. Not RAW. Certainly not cDNG.

If ProRes is good enough for Game Of Thrones, a VFX heavy unlimited budget show that can afford to shoot anything they damn want, then maybe...just maybe...bRAW is a fine substitute for cDNG if you *have* to go RAW.

Anyone who is making this choice based on some youtube clips is also likely doing themselves a great disservice.

If it truly is a deal breaker, then I'm sure you can go pick up a different cDNG based camera right ?

JB

Greetings John Brawley. I completely understand. The concern is just merely personal, still, putting these things on the table might be somewhat helpful or to reflex, most likely to be forgotten in time. Here it goes. Blackmagic Cameras part attractive was being able to offer internal Lossless CinemaDNG, without the need of using an external recorder and match other Industry level Cameras. I like ProRes and use it often while shooting stuff with URSA Mini 4.6K version, but most the time was CinemaDNG ¿Why? Personal preference thanks to what the camera was offering. Game of Thrones is mainly shot with ARRI Alexa's, ProRes is coming from an ALEV III sensor. Not sure what sensor Blackmagic Cameras use, but I don’t think it matches that of an ARRI, different science in color and gamma curve. I can’t compare myself their professional level and taste, but I’m speaking for my self, maybe other that might share this point of view. Been using heavier Blackmagic Cameras through 6 years, when I heard they were finally coming with the so awaited BMPCC 4K, I was so exited, like, bye bye heavy URSA Mini 4.5K. But knowing that you won’t be shooting CinemaDNG anymore on a camera with such small form factor was a personal letdown after so many years of picking CinemaDNG. I haven’t been making choices by just looking at YouTube videos, it’s been through my personal experience using most Blackmagic Cinema Cameras since their very first model, which I still own. Obviously I’m not a great known cinematographer, I still know there’s much to learn and won’t stop learning. Just... If there is chance Blackmagic to overcome this legal matter on having the CinemaDNG license back, it would be just great for them to include recording options for every taste (ProRes, BlackmagicRAW, CinemaDNG) ¿Wouldn’t?

Not sure what sensor Blackmagic Cameras use, but I don’t think it matches that of an ARRI, different science in color and gamma curve.

Fairchild sensor and Blackmagic camera (e.g. the first version Blackmagic Pocket, Micro ... ) is very close to the Arri Alexa image quality. The new Blackmagic Pocket 4K, has a different sensor (Sony). I would be happier if the new pocket had a Fairchild sensor instead.

John Brawley wrote:Let's not get hung up on Game of thrones. The point I was making was that MOST high end work you see, tends to be more likely shot ProRes than any other format. ProRes has been well and truly established as a very robust and high end codec.

JB

What is high-end?

ALEXA 65's ProRes isn't the best i've seen and that is about the highest end camera you can get these days.RED's ProRes is also not that impressive.Sony Venice's ProRes not that good.

Those are the high-end camera's today that have enough bayer pixel to produce a real 4k-DCI output or UHD. The rest of the camera's are upresed at best.

ProRes is well and trully esteblished, that doesn't make it high end to current standards.For TV work it's fine and often good enough for theater.

John Brawley wrote:Let's not get hung up on Game of thrones. The point I was making was that MOST high end work you see, tends to be more likely shot ProRes than any other format. ProRes has been well and truly established as a very robust and high end codec.

JB

What is high-end?

ALEXA 65's ProRes isn't the best i've seen and that is about the highest end camera you can get these days.RED's ProRes is also not that impressive.Sony Venice's ProRes not that good.

Those are the high-end camera's today that have enough bayer pixel to produce a real 4k-DCI output or UHD. The rest of the camera's are upresed at best.

ProRes is well and trully esteblished, that doesn't make it high end to current standards.For TV work it's fine and often good enough for theater.

Moonlight gets 8 Oscar nominations in 2017 including best picture and cinematography and is shot in prores but it's not up to current standards for high end work. I just don't understand this community.

John Brawley wrote:Let's not get hung up on Game of thrones. The point I was making was that MOST high end work you see, tends to be more likely shot ProRes than any other format. ProRes has been well and truly established as a very robust and high end codec.

JB

What is high-end?

ALEXA 65's ProRes isn't the best i've seen and that is about the highest end camera you can get these days.RED's ProRes is also not that impressive.Sony Venice's ProRes not that good.

Those are the high-end camera's today that have enough bayer pixel to produce a real 4k-DCI output or UHD. The rest of the camera's are upresed at best.

ProRes is well and trully esteblished, that doesn't make it high end to current standards.For TV work it's fine and often good enough for theater.

Alexa 65's pro res isn't the best you've seen?

You realize that the Alexa 65 doesn't record in ProRes, right? So how did you see it exactly?